If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Margaret Thatcher, a woman, had no problem having Britain declare war on Argentina and leading them to victory. She was quite content to join Bush I on having the first Iraq war. She was thrilled when Bush and Blair prepared for the 2nd Iraq war.

Read I, Claudius (based on actual historical events) on the tyranny of Augusta Livia. For other Roman empresses, read up on Pulcheria, who lived a non and had non Christians executed. Or Theodora, who said with the forces and lead them to victory when her husband Justinian I wanted to flee.

In the 1700s, Poland ceased to exist a country? Why? Because Maria Theresa, empress of Austria, joined with Catherine the great, empress of Russia, and Fredrick the Great emperor of Prussia. All three nations declared war on Poland and partitioned it.

Queen Elizabeth I sent English pirates after Spanish treasure ships. Her forces defeated Philip II of Spain's Spanish Armada.

Or read up on Queen Nzhinga of Angola, who sold her enemies into slavery and who fought the Portuguese off (Portugual didn't get to conquer Angola until long after she died).

There have been plenty of female leaders throughout the history of the world. And not only of them were pacifists. Woman can be, and often are as violent as men. In lesbian relationships women often beat each other. Also, look at straight women fighting each other over men.

Eldragon, you contradicted yourself. If humanity is one, then you cannot say it's composed of big, bad, mean men, and tree hugging, peaceful women. It isn't. Both men and women can be, and are power hungry and cruel.

Yes, in TODAY's world, most women value life. I'd love to see mothers from Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, and all the Big countries sit down and talk. No matter where you're from, mothers are the same. We have the same fears, hopes and dreams, and most of them center around keeping our children safe.

Yes, in TODAY's world, most women value life. I'd love to see mothers from Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, and all the Big countries sit down and talk. No matter where you're from, mothers are the same. We have the same fears, hopes and dreams, and most of them center around keeping our children safe.

Isn't that the theme of a Sting song?

Seriously, this is IMO no less true of fathers (speaking as one). The fact is, war is usually a result of choices made by a few people (including those who choose to inlame populations with rhetoric, justified or not). By and large, these are people with power; history has demonstrated that no specific group is immune from corruption by power.

Rob

I put for the general inclination of all mankind, a perpetual and restless desire of power after power, that ceaseth only in death. --Thomas Hobbes

Originally Posted by CassandraW

You're a smug, sneering, ranting asshole, and yet even when I despise your position, I like you.

Bush won reelection in the states. So considering women are 51% of the population, he must have done comparatively well on female voters who didn't mind the fact that Bush went to war in Iraq. At least some of these women were mothers.

A lot of Muslim women support their husbands, fathers, brothers, and sons in the Muslims fight against the Israelis, against the Hindus, and other percieved enemies of Islam.

A mother who lost her child, can be a very angry and venegeful woman. By the way, there are now female suicide bombers and terrorists who have targeted Israelis and Russians. These Chechyn black widows say they do it because they lost sons, fathers, and husbands in the battle against the Russians.

In the ethnic warfares in Africa, women, including mothers, side with their ethnic group against all people from the other group.

If women like you want to have some heart to heart with the female relatives of terrorists, you ladies might find yourselves blown up or shot.

Hillary Clinton voted for the war in Iraq. And today, Condoleeza Rice is one of the strongest hawks in Washington. How about Ann Coulter, one of the most extreme right wingers around? She's female? And there are other female hawks as well. Nancy Grace, a prosecutor from Georgia, is a very pro death penalty and pro law enforcement/shoot 'em up type person.

Most of those female leaders I mentioned in my previous post had children. Didn't stop them from declaring war on people or having people executed.

Also, as an aside, I think saying all wars are caused by men is like saying all crime is committed by men. Itís just a gross over-generalization.

Last I heard, women feel lust and greed and avarice and anger and hatred and all the other vast range of human emotions that men do. I have bartended in a friend of mineís bar for six years and in all that time, out of about 30 or so fights that have broke out Ė only two were started by men.

Yes, of course women focus on keeping their children safe. Are you saying that men donít? Why do you think most wars are fought? Usually itís either to get something you donít have but feel you must have, or to keep something you value and cannot give up.

People go to war to protect their families and their way of life, or to make them better. The muslim fundamentalists believe this. Iraq believed this when invading Kuwait. Iran believed this when attacking Iraq. Americans and Britons have always believed this. Even the Soviets believed it and the Nazis did also.

When two nations or societies have opposing views on what is best for their particlular situation or different ideas on how to satisfy their own needs Ė then you have conflict. If not resolved, then this often leads to war.

Yes, I wish the world were a better palce with no wars and no reason for war Ė but I also wish there were no crime, free beer and no commercials. Unfortunately, these are facts of life we must live with.

There are people in this world who believe that any society that allows a woman to speak her mind, that allows them to learn, that allows them to have a job, that allows them to show themselves in public etc. are a danger to them and an affront to their god and religion.

There are people in this world who not only believe this but believe it is their duty to destroy those who believe and act differently. They believe it is their duty and obligation to destroy anything that suggests a different viewpoint from the one they believe.

There have been plenty of female leaders throughout the history of the world. And not only of them were pacifists. Woman can be, and often are as violent as men. In lesbian relationships women often beat each other. Also, look at straight women fighting each other over men.

Eldragon, you contradicted yourself. If humanity is one, then you cannot say it's composed of big, bad, mean men, and tree hugging, peaceful women. It isn't. Both men and women can be, and are power hungry and cruel.

Justino - I tried to list all the Kings and dictators of the past who were tyrannical - but the list was too long. Good thing your list of women was short enough to put in a post.

I didn't contradict myself. I never said those words.

However - I stand by my statement. If you don't believe me ........think about it.

What was dad like?
What was mom like?

Now, Justino, don't go talking about how you know all these mean moms...we all do. But, everybody is scared of daddy.

There are always examples to call upon for any argument. Yes, there are women in prison - but compared to men?

Stats I could find online are:

The female prisoner population has more than doubled since 1990 from 44,065 to 94,336 in 2001 (BJS, 2002).

Females accounted for 6.7% of all prisoners nationwide at mid-year 2001, up from 4.1% in 1980 and 5.7% in 1990 (BJS, 2002).

Mens incarceration rate is still 15 times higher than for women. Men are much more likely to be serving sentences for longer than a year. Out of 100,000 citizens, 900 males and 59 females are serving sentences longer than 1 year. (BJS, 2002).

In 2000, 22% of arrests were of women. (BJS, 2000).

Women account for approximately 14% of violent offenders -- an annual average of 2.1 million violent female offenders (BJS, 2000).

As is the case with men, African-American and other minority women are disproportionately represented among the prison population (BJS, 2002).

I agree with you completely, and as a spiritualist who believes alot of Buddhism , you and I both know that we are all one people, regardless of color, Nationality, sex or religion.

This was my statement. And, I believe it. Unfortunately, I can only do so much. Other people have to embrace it, too, in order to start working together to make the world a good place for everyone to be........not just those of us who have money, power, the right colored skin, the correct religious beliefs, and especially for those of us who were born in a rich country - as if we had any choice in the matter.

You can accept it now, or accept it much later. It's entirely up to you.

peace is an unattainable ideal. war is always about people who are rigid in their views crossing paths with the same.

Sure - killing people because you disagree with them - started with barbarians. We don't live like barbarians anymore - but we still kill people we disagree with.

It's no different than Erich Maria Remarques "All Quiet on the Western Front." You get stuck in a fox hole with your "enemy" and find out you aren't really enemies, just like people wearing different uniforms - fighting against each other - killing each other - because some guy in a suit someplace said you had to.

"
Justino - I tried to list all the Kings and dictators of the past who were tyrannical - but the list was too long. Good thing your list of women was short enough to put in a post."

Err, no, there are others. But I don't need to post every female leader or every male leader who was or is a tyrant. You claimed that all wars were started because of men. And that isn't true.

"What was mom like?"

My mom worked for the police department, and later on for a utility company. Any woman who has always worked on jobs that are predominately male is mean spirited by her nature. But she's irrelevant in a discussion about terrorism.

I note you provided no link to these alleged statistics that you supposedly found online.

I seriously doubt 6.7% female incarceration rate. For one, prostitution is a predominately female crime. And you do go to jail for that. The perpetuators of literary fraud (Melane Mills, Debbie Derkin, etc) that have been discussed on this website have had a high percentage of females involved. And statistically, a lot of women are in jail for crimes like drug dealing as well.

Your even trying to suggest most crimes are committed by men shows your irrationality due to your previous marriage. Which is why you now find the need to vilify all men. Your bitterness and anger is astounding. You might want to see psychiatric help for that. This thread was originally about terrorism, yet you find ways to make it into the big, bad, mean men versus the sweet little innocent girls.

Please point to a state government or federal government source on the web that shows the prison stats. Any other organization isn't going to be a primary source on said stats. The bureau of prisons (Federal) lists no apparent statistics. And by the way, getting such stats from www.batteredwives.com isn't a reliable resource.

The ultimate gist of this thread is about the tragedy in London, and what we should be doing to prevent it. Your baggage about your marriage need not apply.

Sure - killing people because you disagree with them - started with barbarians. We don't live like barbarians anymore - but we still kill people we disagree with.

It's no different than Erich Maria Remarques "All Quiet on the Western Front." You get stuck in a fox hole with your "enemy" and find out you aren't really enemies, just like people wearing different uniforms - fighting against each other - killing each other - because some guy in a suit someplace said you had to.

Pam, While I sympathize with your sentiments and feel they are truly laudable, I think they're just not realistic.

What if someone came up to you and said you couldn't work anymore. Not only that but you're not allowed to even leave your house unless you're accompanied by a man. You're not allowed to express your thoughts and when you go on the internet - it will only be to approved sites for approved information. You must dress the way they say and act the way they say and live the way they say.

Believe in Buddha's precepts and nature and paganism etc? No, you will worship the god they say you will and do it the way they say you should.

Would you still feel like staying home and taking care of your kids and baking a pie etc. Any daughters in the house? No problem letting them step into a world like that?

And while this may not be the case here where you live - there are millions of women who do not have this liberty. Where they live, they must live under these conditions. Not just women, but anyone who lives in such a society. The disenfanchised, the powerless, the masses.

Wow, I wonder what Susan B Anthony and all the other suffragettes would think about a woman who professed a woman's way when confronted by a problem was to stay home and bake a pie and take care of the kids.

I guess that's the problem I have - is when people say all we need is love, violence is never the answer, we just have to understand each other etc.

Tell that to the parents who's child was kidnapped, brutalized and murdered. Tell that to the woman who was gang-raped and then saw her brutalizers let go. Tell that to the people who lost loved ones in 9-11 and London. Tell that to the people who live under repression and totalitarianism.

The fact is that there are people who do not believe we are all one. That there are people out there who's wiring is seriously screwed up. They do not operate under the same rules normal people do.

Yes, you're right - there are barbarians in the world. But what do we do? Let them have their way? Ignore them? Stay at home with our heads in the sand?

Or do we meet them head on. Confront them. Be proactive and do something about the problem.

No matter how deplorable or upsetting you feel it is, some things are worth fighting for. Ask Susan B. Anthony, Abraham Lincoln, Martin Luther King, our founding fathers, the Jews of Nazi Germany, the British, pre-twentieth century blacks and women - the list is endless of people who did what they felt they had to do to achieve or defend what they believed in - even if it meant resorting to violence.

So I ask - is this feeling the domain of men alone? The desire to defend unto death that which we hold dear? Women don't feel the need to act to preserve their own?

Yes, we shouldn't kill people we disagree with. But sometimes it is necessary when confronted by those who threaten your way of life and are not willing to accept anything but victory or death.

This was my statement. And, I believe it. Unfortunately, I can only do so much. Other people have to embrace it, too, in order to start working together to make the world a good place for everyone to be........not just those of us who have money, power, the right colored skin, the correct religious beliefs, and especially for those of us who were born in a rich country - as if we had any choice in the matter.

Unfortunately, this isn't a new sentiment. As William said, peace is an ideal-that's why it's negatively defined (peace is the absence of war).

There are always those who wish/hope for a world without war/violence/evil. And their mantra is always one of "working towards a better world." In my judgement, this is a good thing, though it will not succeed. But the world needs the utopian vision as a counter to reality; it can help minimize some violence, some evil. The danger, I think, with the existence of such movements is that they may become perceived as too real, too possible. Societies that are characterized by a widespread acceptence of this "vision" allow far more in the way of opposition, particularly opposition to government, even theirs.

BF's link and Justino's earlier posts point to this occuring in England. The terrorist attack has probably "snapped" some proponents of this vision back to reality; at least I hope it has.

I don't think this means we shouldn't strive for peace, merely that we should recognize the world for what it is and people for how they really behave.

"Who desires peace should prepare for war." Flavius Renatus, 375 AD.

or, if you prefer:
"War is evil, but it is often the lesser evil." George Orwell, 1945.

Rob

I put for the general inclination of all mankind, a perpetual and restless desire of power after power, that ceaseth only in death. --Thomas Hobbes

Originally Posted by CassandraW

You're a smug, sneering, ranting asshole, and yet even when I despise your position, I like you.

With regard to the male/female thing, we have to remember that society didn't suddenly appear in its present form, here or anywhere else. Most of our known history is dominated by paternalistic societies (with significant exceptions, to be sure). But paternalism isn't an ideology, or an aspect of society-it's a consequence of human nature and human experience. Men are by nature more aggresive, less sedentary in these societies because they are, themselves, products of these societies. But this doesn't mean a specific man is more aggresive than a specific woman, nor does it mean men, by definition, are more prone to start wars.

Stats on crime in the U.S. are products of a society in which the male is simply more likely to commit such crimes, based on many other factors which are not properly stated or accounted for. What are the stats for these same things in a fully maternalistic society? Obviously, there is no comparable one to use, so these stats are meaningless for viewing men and women on general; they are applicable only to men and women who are a product of this one society.

Rob

I put for the general inclination of all mankind, a perpetual and restless desire of power after power, that ceaseth only in death. --Thomas Hobbes

Originally Posted by CassandraW

You're a smug, sneering, ranting asshole, and yet even when I despise your position, I like you.

Female animals, from little chickens, to women, to bears, will often take on any foe in defense of their children.

When the US rebelled against Britain in the American Revolution, women actively assisted the war effort in anyway they could. When the US fought in World War II against the Nazis, while men went away to war, many women gladly worked in manufacturing jobs and replaced the men (also helping out the war effort directly).

The desire of females to take on any foe in defense of their children has indeed lead to women to promoted violence and war against percieved enemies.

The black slaves rebelled against their French masters in Haiti. Haitian black women didn't urge their men to stay at home because the women in Haiti had an universal sisterhood. They were proud to have the men fight.

Any country they ever had to fight a war of independance or fight off an occupation had active women supporters in the war effort itself.

I'm sure most Jewish women were happy that Adolt Hiter was stopped, and that the Western allies took down Hitler. Likewise, at that time, racist German women supported Hitler. Just like white women racists during slavery supported it.

Your even trying to suggest most crimes are committed by men shows your irrationality due to your previous marriage. Which is why you now find the need to vilify all men. Your bitterness and anger is astounding. You might want to see psychiatric help for that. This thread was originally about terrorism, yet you find ways to make it into the big, bad, mean men versus the sweet little innocent girls.
(I never said anything about girls - hello?)

l government source on the web that shows the prison stats. Any other organization isn't going to be a primary source on said stats. The bureau of prisons (Federal) lists no apparent statistics. And by the way, getting such stats from www.batteredwives.com isn't a reliable resource.

The ultimate gist of this thread is about the tragedy in London, and what we should be doing to prevent it. Your baggage about your marriage need not apply.

Justino - look, just because you are gay, doesn't mean you have to hate women.

Isn't that how you play? My thoughts have nothing to do with a stupid marriage that ended 16 fricken years ago. You take my support for battered women from another thread, and drag it over here - weeks later? I'm not bitter at all.

I've never been to batteredwives.com - but apparently you have.

Geez - maybe you base all your decision in life on being something decades ago - but I don't. I'm not twenty years old - I'm 41. I am built up of all things - good things, bad things - but that stupid marriage is far behind. I left it behind when I left him behind. Almost 17 years ago. That doesn't mean I can't remember how it feels to have someone's thumb on my head.

You really need to learn to discuss things as they are relevant to a specific thread. Going back to other threads and cross-referencing are silly. I am more of a person than what I type in a few minutes on a thread. I am just putting in my 2 cents as you do.

Anyway - unfortunately, I have to go get our stuff around - cause Dennis is heading this way - a category 4 hurricane.

Sorry I didn't provide a link for you Justino - I dont have anymore time.

I also disagree that ending poverty is a silly notion. There are enough resources on this planet to keep everyone currently alive healthy and well-fed. It's a matter of distrubution. And we can end the poverty. But the -people- have to be willing to share. We can't force that at gunpoint any more than we can force democracy at gunpoint.

Somehow I don't think the problem is getting the PEOPLE to share. As I have posted in another thread I think the U.S. is among the most compassionate of nations with regard to foreign aid, but the real problem lies with the LEADERS of many of these foreign countries who never allow the aid resources to reach the people who need them the most.

It is with this in mind that I watched the coverage of the Live 8 concert, as well as the G8 summit, with a touch of sadness. For all the good intentions and political posturing I fear the funds raised will do nothing more than line the pockets of many of the African "leaders". That's not to say we should stand idly by but somehow I picture Robert Mugabe rubbing his hands with glee in expectation of a sudden infusion of cash. What's even more frustrating to me is that many of those who decry the situation in Africa and other places around the world (Geldof, Bono) think simply raising funds and throwing the money at Africa will solve the problem. It will not. In fact, an argument can be made that it might well do the opposite and exacerbate the situation. Sadly, it's the people who suffer while their leaders grow fat.
What's the answer? I don't know.

While I'm not one to advocate violence, I fear the only thing thugs like Mugabe, Idi Amin, Assad and, dare I say, Hussein, will ever understand is the heel of a boot pressed against their necks or the muzzle of a gun against their temple.

"The only sensible ends of literature are, first, the pleasurable toil of writing; second, the gratification of one's family and friends; and lastly, the solid cash."

Ironically, peace is attained through war and the unconditional defeat of an enemy. Peace is rarely, if ever, attained solely through treaties, good intentions, kind words, or rational debate. Everyone wishes it could be different but reality is a harsh taskmaster, and the side that is slowest in learning and accepting this fact is often the one whose children will speak the language of their conquerors.

"The only sensible ends of literature are, first, the pleasurable toil of writing; second, the gratification of one's family and friends; and lastly, the solid cash."